/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11402802

326KiB, 1000x1500, 1578199668687.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 19:38:57 2020 No.11402802 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11402812

Can someone explain in simple terms why physics is inconsistent?

- which theories are inconsistent and which are not?
- why exactly are they inconsistent?
- is there a small subset of theories that are inconsistent with the larger set, or is there a split down the middle?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 2020 19:40:59 No.11402812 Report

Quoted By: >>11402816

>>11402802
>why physics is inconsistent?
it isn't. different theories apply to different phenomena

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 2020 19:42:36 No.11402816 Report

Quoted By: >>11403065 >>11403183

>>11402812
Quantum mechanics and general relativity have not been reconciled.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ebin.png, 32KiB, 623x750

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 2020 21:28:56 No.11403065 Report

Quoted By:

>>11402816
>*blocks your path*

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 2020 22:24:07 No.11403183 Report

Quoted By: >>11403386

>>11402816
This. Our most widely accepted views of mechanics and space don't work together; something has to go, but consensus is not willing to give up on either.

Also our cosmology is actually by now a total mess: we started constructing it over a hundred years ago and have driven forward heedlessly in the name of progress, holding onto every piece of the puzzle and theory. It's littered with ad hoc and piecemeal solutions, explaining superficial observed phenomena with increasingly complex interior models. Experts in their respective areas can't (are not financially or socially motivated to) see the big picture, and we're stuck in a state akin to trashing or deadlock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Feb 2020 23:34:24 No.11403386 Report

Quoted By: >>11403441

>>11403183
Still waiting for that paradigm shift to throw away the standard model for a much simpler theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 00:00:43 No.11403441 Report

Quoted By: >>11403573

>>11403386
the standard model keeps getting reinforced/validated though with all the particles and phenomenons being discovered.
Honestly we just need another Poincaré+Einstein combo to pave the way to the new physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 00:58:02 No.11403573 Report

Quoted By: >>11403620

>>11403441
We are only finding the new particles in the machines built and tailored for that purpose. We're just validating our assumptions without adding any theoretical value. Higher and higher precision measurements of h-bar are ultimately as worthless as finding more precise values of pi. The field of physics has been continually narrowed to particular experimental and theoretical domains; there are no applications for the majority of findings, and many natural phenomena remain unexplained.

Finding a model with enough degrees of freedom to fit to your data is a sorry excuse for science. Quark confinement and unconstrained binding energy should be enough to invalidate the standard model, unless you only care about predictability in a narrow regime. Like the internet, it seems like physicists invented machine learning before it got popular.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:14:37 No.11403620 Report

Quoted By: >>11403642

>>11403573
you know nothing anon. quark confinement is easily reconciled with the standard model (given the renormalization flow of QCD coupling) and is taught in many standard textbooks like griffiths. the reason it is a million dollar mathematics prize is because the intuition hasn’t been translated to mathfag-accessible terms so making a rigorous mathematical formulation of the obvious physical picture is what is lacking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:19:40 No.11403642 Report

Quoted By: >>11403649

>>11403620
The point is there are no independent quarks: they may as well not exist. They're only there for accounting purposes to make energy exchanges in QCD; no amount of mathematical conditioning to smooth out the infinities as any bearing on this argument. The fact that mathematicians themselves aren't comfortable with the procedure, like a lot of the things in the standard model, only presses the point. But please provide the obvious physical picture that I'm missing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:22:58 No.11403649 Report

Quoted By: >>11403659 >>11403670

>>11403642
mathematicians have no problem with introducing more generations of quarks so you are completely spewing garbage.

the fact that quarks are exist is experimental. it is beyond theoretical speculation since it has been measured. look up b-tagging

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:25:02 No.11403659 Report

Quoted By:

>>11403649
>quarks are exist
*quarks exist
typo

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:28:32 No.11403670 Report

Quoted By: >>11403687

>>11403649
There are in fact, no such thing as quarks. And I've made you totally incoherent. Sorry anon.

If you think such things are beyond theoretical speculation and have no room in your mind for interpretation of experiments, it's clear you have no talent for science or understanding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:34:23 No.11403687 Report

Quoted By:

>>11403670
>There are in fact, no such thing as quarks.
great argument anon, just make a claim that contradicts the consensus of experts, and claim you're right by fiat.

the problem is that you're actually wrong. remember how i mentioned b-tagging? you are just a pseud contrarian who inadvertently bought into a version of postmodernism so that you can say science is wrong with a straight face

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:40:24 No.11403706 Report

Quoted By: >>11403716

Physics is quite reactionary. You see something you don’t understand and you come up with a way to explain it based on things you do understand. So from this you get things like gravitons which would show gravity to be a force but then you get relatively which explains it as curvature in space time. Both theories explain different things really well so finding a joining point between the two is very difficult as some things are based on incorrect assumptions somewhere down the line and some things haven’t been properly explored or explained yet. Science is an incomplete picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 01:44:12 No.11403716 Report

Quoted By: >>11404580

>>11403706
> Physics is quite reactionary.
define "reactionary"

everything else you said is trivially true (like e.g. "science is an incomplete picture" -- no scientist would claim that science is "complete") but saying it is "reactionary" is like me saying something like "republicans' budgets are nonrenormalizable". it is an abuse of terminology that is out of context and assigns a word with the implication of retardation to something that it can't possibly apply to

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Feb 2020 12:12:34 No.11404580 Report

Quoted By:

>>11403716
Einstein said it best: the theory tells you what you can measure. Instead, it's the other way round: we take measurements and make a theory out of them. This is bad, because then we measure only things which reinforce out theories.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches